AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—1. The petitioners who claim themselves to be the Managing Committee of Sri Paramhans Educational Society, Majhauli, District Ballia, a registered Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act1 and its Secretary have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in questioning the legality of the order dated 18 January 2016 passed by the second respondent2 discarding the papers submitted by the petitioners for registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4 of the Act and accepting the claim laid in that regard by the third respondent3 and further directing for proceedings being undertaken for renewal of the registration at his instance. All proceedings submitted by the petitioners as well as action taken on basis of these proceedings have been declared a nullity. On the other hand, the proceedings submitted by the third respondent have been held to be lawful and valid as those were conducted from amongst valid members who participated in the proceedings dated 5 February 1996. The effect of such declaration is that the periodical election held at an interval of three years since after 1996 and some of which were duly recognised by the authorities by passing specific orders, have been rendered a nullity.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there had been a series of previous adjudication by the different authorities wherein the elections held in the past, in which the second petitioner was elected as Secretary/Manager were upheld. In this regard reliance has been placed on an order passed by the Regional Level Committee on 20.9.2004 in which the claim of the second petitioner as Manager on the basis of elections held on 27.4.2003 was upheld and the rival claim set up by the third respondent was rejected. The order was affirmed in writ petition field by the third respondent. Again, it is pointed out that the second respondent by an order dated 29.6.2006 directed for registration of the list of the office bearers submitted by the petitioners and repelled the objection filed by the third respondent. The order of the second respondent was again affirmed with the dismissal of writ petition No. 51647 of 2006. It is pointed out that again by an order dated 18.4.2007, the Regional Level Committee recognised the management elected on 23.4.2006 with the second petitioner as its Manager. The third respondent again challenged the same in a writ petition4, which was dismissed on 15.4.2008 leaving it open to him to file civil suit. Thereafter, the third respondent filed Original Suit No. 511 of 2011 in which an application for temporary injunction filed by him was rejected. Again in writ petition No. 33970 of 2012, which came to be decided by this Court by judgement dated 16.10.2012 in reference to the rival claim for renewal of registration, this Court observed that basic dispute between the parties is regarding the membership of the society/electoral college which can only be decided in a suit. Relying on this judgement, it is urged that the impugned order now passed by the second respondent suffers from non-application of mind. It is submitted that even this Court while deciding the writ petition No. 33970 of 2012 held that the findings recorded by the civil court while deciding the application for temporary injunction shall be binding on the second respondent. However, it is submitted that the second respondent has ignored the findings of the civil court and has infact usurped the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act in deciding the rival claim relating to the elections. It is further submitted that observation in the impugned order that the petitioners have not produced the original record, is wholly incorrect in as much as the original records were produced before him at the time of hearing on 8.1.2015. It is further submitted that the hearing concluded before the second respondent on 8.1.2015 whereas the order has been passed after more than one year on 18.1.2016 and this itself is sufficient to vitiate the impugned order. It is further submitted that the third respondent filed certain papers on 27.1.2015, i.e., after hearing had concluded on 8.1.2015. These papers were taken note of in the impugned order without the copies thereof being made available to the petitioners and thus serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. It is further submitted that no finding in relation to the validity of the alleged elections set up by the third respondent has been recorded and the papers submitted by him have been held to be valid on the basis of surmises and conjunctures.
On the other hand, Sri H.N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that in the impugned order, the Assistant Registrar has only decided the membership dispute. It is urged that in the year 1996, there were only 13 members and taking notice of the said fact, the Assistant Registrar has passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the petitioners could not produce the original documents nor any evidence in relation to induction of new members in the year 1996 to 1998 and thus, no illegality has been committed.
It is not disputed before this Court that in the year 2000, elections were held on 11.6.2000, in which the second petitioner was elected as Secretary. There was no rival claim and the list of office bearers was registered under Section 4 of the Act. According to the petitioners, these elections were held from the general body comprising of 33 members. Next elections were held on 27.4.2003, in which the second petitioner claimed to have been reelected on the post of Secretary. The Regional Level Committee, in the context of the elections of the institutions, passed an order dated 20.9.2004 recognising these elections. It was challenged by the third respondent and by one Shiv Shambhoo Tiwari by filing two separate writ petitions5. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgement dated 4.1.2005. In the said judgement, this Court entered a specific finding that the general body of the Society and the institution are one and the same. The Court upheld the order of the Regional Level Committee recognising the elections held from the general body comprising of 27 members. The petitioners of those writ petitions were granted liberty to file civil suit. The relevant findings recorded in the said judgement are as follows :-
"The Regional Committee has found this list of 27 members sent by the Assistant Registrar as valid. The Regional Committee can go into the question about the validity of the list of members only incidentally. It is stated in para 18 of the counter filed in writ petition No. 47392 of 2004 that the list of members of the general body and office bearers was being filed before the Assistant Registrar regularly. It has also been found by the Regional Committee that the list of the members of the committee of management in which Gautam Tiwari is the Mantri/Prabandhak for the year 2001-2002 and 2002-03 was registered by the Assistant Registrar. It is not in dispute that the general body, which elects the committee of management of the society is the same as the general body which elects the committee of management of the institution. The Regional Committee found that no objection to the list of members of the management of the society was raised by the petitioners. The elections of the committee of management of the institution on the basis of the list of members of the general body sent by the Assistant Registrar was therefore a valid list. While deciding the dispute under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act the Joint Director of Education has to consider only prima facie as to whether the persons who had participated in the election had a right to participate in the election. The order of the Regional Committee of the Joint Director of Education shows that the committee applied mind upon the question of the membership."
"The petitioners have also an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit and of getting adjudication about the membership also in such a suit."
The case of the petitioners was that the third respondent and five other persons were expelled from the primary membership on 14.9.2003 and certain new persons were enrolled on 22.12.1996 and 15.2.1998. One Sri Shree Narayan Tiwari alongwith the third respondent instead of filing civil suit, raised the dispute before the Assistant Registrar contending that there were only 13 members in the general body and new members were got enrolled illegally by the second petitioner. The Assistant Registrar by an order dated 29.6.2006 repelled these pleas and declined to recall the order registering the list of office bearers under Section 4 of the Act. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the third respondent but only by Sri Shree Narayan Tiwari, by filing a writ petition6. It was dismissed on 3.4.2014 as having become infructuous.
Again, the fresh elections were set up by the petitioners dated 23.4.2006 from a list of general body of 20 members after excluding those who were expelled. In these elections, the second petitioner claimed to be reelected as Manager. The third respondent and Sri Shree Narayan Tiwari again raised the plea that election from the list of newly inducted members and by expulsion of valid members including him was illegal. However, the Regional Level Committee, by order dated 18.4.2007 upheld the elections dated 23.4.2006 held from the list of general body of 20 members. Again the order was challenged in a writ petition7 by the third respondent but was dismissed on 15.4.2008 relying on the previous judgement of this Court in writ petition No. 54837 of 2004.
According to the petitioners, fresh elections were again held on 26.4.2009, in which the second petitioner claimed to be reelected as Manager/Secretary. The third respondent this time around filed original suit No. 511 of 2011 challenging the election. The application for temporary injunction filed by him was dismissed on 20.9.2011 and the order of rejection of the application for temporary injunction was affirmed in appeal.
In another attempt made by the third respondent in relation to the proceedings for renewal, he succeeded in obtaining an order from the Assistant Registrar on 25.5.2012, cancelling the renewal granted on the application of the second petitioner. The petitioners challenged the same in writ petition No. 33970 of 2012. It was disposed of by this Court by judgement dated 16.10.2012 holding that the renewal granted was wrongly cancelled but at the same time clarifying that the grant of renewal shall not be treated to be declaration of status of the second petitioner as Manager. The Court, however clarified that the findings recorded by the civil court shall be binding on the Assistant Registrar. The Court also noticed that the basic dispute between the parties is regarding the membership of the society and it was held that such dispute can only be decided in a civil suit.
The instant proceedings before the Assistant Registrar commenced with the request by the petitioners to register the list of office bearers for the year 2013-14 followed by the applications dated 16.9.2014 and 27.4.2015 to register the list of office bearers for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. On the other hand, the third respondent submitted another list of office bearers for registration relating to the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. In the impugned order, the second respondent held that in 1996, the list of general body comprised of 13 members only as per the application dated 5.2.1996 filed under the joint signatures of the second petitioner and the third respondent and consequently, it was taken to be an undisputed list of the members of the general body. It is held that the petitioners failed to produce original record to approve valid induction of new members in the year 1996 and 1998. The Assistant Registrar by treating the general body as comprising of 13 members in the year 1996, found discrepancies in the figure of the members of the general body on the basis of which subsequent proceedings were held and therefore, concluded that all such proceedings are null and void.
The specific plea of the petitioners is that the list of 13 members of the year 1996, as mentioned in the application dated 5.2.1996 was the list of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management and not that of the general body. However, in the impugned order, the aforesaid plea has not been adverted to by the second respondent. The plea that in relation to the elections held in subsequent years, there had been several adjudications relating to the strength of general body and the elections were also recognised both by the Regional Level Committee as well as by the Assistant Registrar, though taken note of but had not been taken into consideration in the correct perspective. It has not been considered as to whether in view of these adjudications, it was open to the second respondent to redetermine the controversy relating to induction of new members in the year 1996 and 1998 or expulsion of certain members in the year 2003. It has also been ignored that the periodical elections held after 1996 had been registered under Section 4 and were also recognised by the Regional Level Committee and those were held from a general body of more than 13 persons. The assertions made in the impugned order that the original record were not produced by the petitioners, has been specifically refuted in paragraph 71 of the writ petition. In view of the above, this Court finds force in the first submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that while passing the impugned order, the Assistant Registrar has failed to consider the impact of the previous adjudications in the correct perspective.
The proceedings set up by the third respondent have been accepted on the mere ground that those were held from the general body comprising of 13 members. The validity of the proceedings have not been considered in reference to the approved bye-laws. Sri H.N. Singh, learned senior counsel very fairly conceded that these aspects requires reconsideration and therefore suggested that the matter be remitted back for reconsideration. Even this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served in quashing the impugned order and in directing the Assistant Registrar to pass a fresh order having regard to the observations made above. It is ordered accordingly.
Since the writ petition succeeds on the very first contention and therefore this Court is not going into the other pleas raised by the petitioners. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to raise all pleas and contentions before the Assistant Registrar including plea that the dispute infact is not confined to determination of the membership of the general body but involves a dispute relating to the validity of the elections which can only be determined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act.
With these clarifications, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned order dated 18.1.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar is quashed. The second respondent is directed to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
No order as to costs.
1The Act
2Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh
3Surya Narayan Tiwari
4Writ Petition No. 40640 of 2007
5Writ Petition No. 45837 of 2004 and Writ Petition No. 47392 of 2004
6Writ Petition No. 51647 of 2006
7Writ Petition No. 40640 of 2007.